Second Correction Issued for Controversial Study on Black Plastic Utensils

In a notable development within the scientific community, the authors of a controversial paper on black plastic kitchen utensils have issued a second correction to their findings. Originally published in September 2023 in the journal *Chemosphere*, the study drew widespread attention by urging consumers to discard black plastic kitchen tools due to concerns about toxic flame retardants. However, the recent corrections have raised further questions regarding the accuracy of the research.

The paper, titled *From e-waste to living space: Flame retardants contaminating household items add to concern about plastic recycling*, was authored by researchers from the advocacy group Toxic-Free Future and the Amsterdam Institute for Life and Environment at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The study analyzed the presence of flame retardants in various household plastic items, including toys, food service trays, and kitchen utensils.

Initially, the study reported alarming estimates of potential daily intake of the flame retardant BDE-209, suggesting figures as high as 34,700 ng/day from using contaminated utensils. This estimate was based on findings from another study that investigated the transfer of toxic chemicals from black plastic utensils into hot cooking oil. However, a miscalculation in the reference dose set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prompted the first correction in December 2023, where the authors mistakenly reported the reference dose as 42,000 ng/day instead of the correct figure of 420,000 ng/day. This error, while acknowledged in the corrigendum, was stated by the authors to not affect the overall conclusions of the paper.

The second corrigendum, published on July 3, 2025, addressed a misinterpretation of the formula used to estimate BDE-209 exposure, which led to an adjustment of the estimated exposure to 7,900 ng/day. Megan Liu, the lead author from Toxic-Free Future, expressed regret over the error but maintained that it did not undermine the core objectives of the study. Nonetheless, Mark Jones, an industrial chemist and consultant with over three decades of experience, has criticized the corrections, asserting that they are inadequate and do not address the significant methodological flaws in the research. Jones contends that the errors are substantial enough to warrant a reevaluation of the study's conclusions, suggesting that the claim that brominated flame retardants ‘significantly contaminate products’ can no longer be supported.

The *Chemosphere* journal, meanwhile, has faced its own challenges, having been delisted from Clarivate's Web of Science for failing to meet editorial quality criteria. An Elsevier spokesperson confirmed that the publisher's ethics team is conducting investigations into potential breaches of the journal’s publishing policies, which has resulted in numerous expressions of concern and retractions this year alone.

The controversy surrounding this study highlights the critical importance of methodological rigor and accuracy in scientific research, especially when public health is at stake. The implications of the findings could influence consumer behavior and regulatory policies regarding the safety of household products. As the situation evolves, ongoing scrutiny from the scientific community and advocacy groups will be essential to ensure transparency and accountability in research practices. The discourse surrounding this paper serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in scientific communication and the need for meticulous peer review processes to uphold the integrity of published studies.